51 Cited authorities

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.

    477 U.S. 242 (1986)   Cited 204,929 times   32 Legal Analyses
    Holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if "the dispute about a material fact is 'genuine,' that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party"
  2. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett

    477 U.S. 317 (1986)   Cited 189,377 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Holding that there cannot be a genuine issue of material fact where the nonmoving party fails to make a sufficient showing to establish the existence of an essential element
  3. Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Res. Def. Council

    467 U.S. 837 (1984)   Cited 14,882 times   430 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts should defer to an agency's reasonable interpretation of ambiguous statutes
  4. US Airways, Inc. v. Barnett

    535 U.S. 391 (2002)   Cited 841 times   26 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "summary judgment is available . . . where there is no genuine dispute that the employer has engaged in the interactive process in good faith."
  5. Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co.

    302 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. 2002)   Cited 1,573 times
    Holding that pro se plaintiff's good faith mistake of law amounted to mere inadvertence, and did not warrant relief from an untimely jury demand
  6. Washington Mut. Inc. v. U.S.

    636 F.3d 1207 (9th Cir. 2011)   Cited 721 times

    No. 09-36109. Argued and Submitted November 1, 2010. Filed March 3, 2011. Alan I. Horowitz, Steven R. Dixon, and Maria O'Toole Jones, Miller Chevalier, Chartered, Washington, D.C., Thomas D. Johnston, Shearman Sterling, Washington, D.C., for the plaintiff-appellant. Arthur Thomas Catterall, Henry C. Darmstadter, David N. Geier, Teresa E. McLaughlin, and James E. Weaver, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., Helen J. Brunner, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for the defendant-appellee

  7. Taylor v. Phoenixville School District

    184 F.3d 296 (3d Cir. 1999)   Cited 979 times
    Holding thinking is a major life activity
  8. Beck v. University of Wisconsin Board of Regents

    75 F.3d 1130 (7th Cir. 1996)   Cited 551 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an employer sufficiently participated in the interactive process in part because the employee “offer[ed] no evidence that” the alternative accommodation proposed by her employer “was an unreasonable accommodation”
  9. E.E.O.C. v. Sears, Roebuck Co.

    417 F.3d 789 (7th Cir. 2005)   Cited 397 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a "severe difficulty in walking the equivalent of one city block was a substantial limitation compared to the walking most people do daily"
  10. Brady v. Wal-Mart

    531 F.3d 127 (2d Cir. 2008)   Cited 359 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding Rule 50(b) judgment contrary to jury verdict appropriate only "if there exists such a complete absence of evidence supporting the verdict that the jury's findings could only have been the result of sheer surmise and conjecture, or the evidence in favor of the movant is so overwhelming that reasonable and fair minded persons could not arrive at a verdict against it" (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted)
  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 278,986 times   127 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
  12. Section 12101 - Findings and purpose

    42 U.S.C. § 12101   Cited 19,110 times   56 Legal Analyses
    Finding a pattern of " unnecessary discrimination and prejudice" that "costs the United States billions of dollars in unnecessary expenses resulting from dependency and nonproductivity"
  13. Rule 30 - Depositions by Oral Examination

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 30   Cited 11,511 times   98 Legal Analyses
    Upholding a district court's decision not to consider the plaintiff's deposition errata sheets in opposition to a motion for summary judgment when they were untimely
  14. § 1630.2 Definitions

    29 C.F.R. § 1630.2   Cited 7,276 times   135 Legal Analyses
    Holding that major life activity is substantially limited if plaintiff is "significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills and abilities"
  15. Section 162-22-025 - Unfair practice

    Wash. Admin. Code § 162-22-025   Cited 7 times

    It is an unfair practice for any employer, employment agency, labor union, or other person to: (1) Refuse to hire, discharge, bar from employment, or otherwise discriminate against an able worker with a disability or because of the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by an able worker with a disability; or (2) Fail or refuse to make reasonable accommodation for an able worker with a disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by an able worker with a disability, unless

  16. Section 162-22-065 - Reasonable accommodation

    Wash. Admin. Code § 162-22-065   Cited 6 times
    Adjusting work schedule is an example of a reasonable accommodation
  17. Section 162-22-075 - Undue hardship exception

    Wash. Admin. Code § 162-22-075   Cited 5 times

    An employer, employment agency, labor union, or other person must provide reasonable accommodation unless it can prove that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship. An accommodation will be considered an undue hardship if the cost or difficulty is unreasonable in view of: (1) The size of and the resources available to the employer; (2) Whether the cost can be included in planned remodeling or maintenance; and (3) The requirements of other laws and contracts, and other appropriate considerations